“Foreign Affairs” magazine says not letting women fight is gender stereotyping. That's not how decorated Vietnam vet Jim Webb saw it in “The Washingtonian.”
“We would go months without bathing, except when we could stand naked among each other . . .”
Those words are how Jim Webb, before he became Secretary of the Navy and then a United States Senator, started his 1979 Washingtonian magazine article “Women Can’t Fight.” The story caused Webb endless headaches as the Naval Academy graduate and former Marine Corps officer in Vietnam became more political and had to first face congressional hearings and then take part in them as the Democratic senator from Virginia.
Contrast what Webb wrote 33 years ago with this new look at the subject of women in combat, described below in an e-mail from Foreign Affairs magazine.
Dear Colleague:
“Today, 214,098 women serve in the U.S. military, representing 14.6 percent of total service members. Around 280,000 women have worn American uniforms in Afghanistan and Iraq, where 144 have died and over 600 have been injured.”
“Yet the U.S. military, at least officially, still bans women from serving in direct combat positions.”
So writes international relations expert Megan H. MacKenzie in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. According to MacKenzie, arguments against female soldiers are simply outdated.
“Proponents of the policy, who include Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), former chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), rely on three central arguments: thatwomen cannot meet the physical requirements necessary to fight, that they simply don’t belong in combat, and that their inclusion in fighting units would disrupt those units’ cohesion and battle readiness. Yet these arguments do not stand up to current data on women’s performance in combat or their impact on troop dynamics.”
“Banning women from combat does not ensure military effectiveness. It only perpetuates counterproductive gender stereotypes and biases. It is time for the U.S. military to get over its hang-ups and acknowledge women’s rightful place on the battlefield.”
Should Women Be Fighting and Dying in Combat?
“Foreign Affairs” magazine says not letting women fight is gender stereotyping. That's not how decorated Vietnam vet Jim Webb saw it in “The Washingtonian.”
“We would go months without bathing, except when we could stand naked among each other . . .”
Those words are how Jim Webb, before he became Secretary of the Navy and then a United States Senator, started his 1979 Washingtonian magazine article “Women Can’t Fight.” The story caused Webb endless headaches as the Naval Academy graduate and former Marine Corps officer in Vietnam became more political and had to first face congressional hearings and then take part in them as the Democratic senator from Virginia.
Contrast what Webb wrote 33 years ago with this new look at the subject of women in combat, described below in an e-mail from Foreign Affairs magazine.
Dear Colleague:
“Today, 214,098 women serve in the U.S. military, representing 14.6 percent of total service members. Around 280,000 women have worn American uniforms in Afghanistan and Iraq, where 144 have died and over 600 have been injured.”
“Yet the U.S. military, at least officially, still bans women from serving in direct combat positions.”
So writes international relations expert Megan H. MacKenzie in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. According to MacKenzie, arguments against female soldiers are simply outdated.
“Proponents of the policy, who include Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), former chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), rely on three central arguments: thatwomen cannot meet the physical requirements necessary to fight, that they simply don’t belong in combat, and that their inclusion in fighting units would disrupt those units’ cohesion and battle readiness. Yet these arguments do not stand up to current data on women’s performance in combat or their impact on troop dynamics.”
“Banning women from combat does not ensure military effectiveness. It only perpetuates counterproductive gender stereotypes and biases. It is time for the U.S. military to get over its hang-ups and acknowledge women’s rightful place on the battlefield.”
Read “Let Women Fight.”
Jack Limpert, former editor of Washingtonian now a writer at large for the magazine, can be found at his blog, jacklimpert.com.
Most Popular in News & Politics
Every Bus Line in DC Is Changing This Weekend. Here’s What to Know.
Yet Another Anti-Trump Statue Has Shown Up on the National Mall
8 Takeaways From Usha Vance’s Interview With Meghan McCain
What to Know About the Dupont Circle “Deckover” Project
Bans on Underage Vaping, Swastika Graffiti, Synthetic Dyes: New Virginia Laws Go Into Effect in July
Washingtonian Magazine
July Issue: The "Best Of" Issue
View IssueSubscribe
Follow Us on Social
Follow Us on Social
Related
How Would a New DC Stadium Compare to the Last One?
The Culture of Lacrosse Is More Complex Than People Think
“Mean Mugging” at Ward 8 Candidate Forum Leads to Arrest
Did Television Begin in Dupont Circle?
More from News & Politics
How DC’s Attorney General Got So Good at Double Dutch
DC Council Ponders New Way to Expel Trayon White, the GOP’s Budget Bill Advances, and We Found You Some Tacos With Ethiopian Flair
For DNC Chair Ken Martin, the Big Beautiful Bill Is Personal
Every Bus Line in DC Is Changing This Weekend. Here’s What to Know.
We’re Still Litigating “Obliterated,” Apparently; Man Deported After Kicking Dog at Dulles; and “Big Balls” Is Back on the Job
Did Busy Pizza Shops Really Predict US Airstrikes on Iran?
Yet Another Anti-Trump Statue Has Shown Up on the National Mall
8 Takeaways From Usha Vance’s Interview With Meghan McCain